Did they live in estates? Did they own castles? How did they earn an income? How often would they attend Church and what denomination? How did they view the liberal party? What about the Conservative party? How did they see other classes and how did the other classes see them? Were they all descendants from William the Conqueror and his posse?

Sorry if this has been asked before; I didn't see anything in the FAQ or in a search. If people had any pets during WWII, what became of them when the people were taken away? Did the soldiers simply kill them? Leave them unattended? Something possibly less terrible?

I guess I'm asking why coffee grew in popularity as the hot beverage of choice and over what time frame this occurred. This didn't seem to happen in Europe, so I'm thinking it had something to do with the difficulty of importing tea after America gained independence.

Was watching a documentary were General Marshall was so upset about the founding of a Jewish state that he told Truman he wouldn't vote for him.

I currently run the architecture awards program for the Florida/Caribbean Region and am looking to entice new members of our association to enter the awards. Not to mention, our theme is connecting people and places.

In terms of early American leadership, Washington and Jefferson's regard for architecture is evident. Additionally, I know that the Capitol, the White House, the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial are all products of design competitions...but what are some others around the country... or are there any "starchitects" who have rose to their position as elite architects due to a breakthrough with a competition entry?

I'll try to keep it relatively brief, but my understanding of the situation before the Battle at Agincourt is as such:

• The English army were exhausted, cut-off from any support and many were sick with dysentry.
• The terrain was extremely muddy underfoot making it difficult for knights and horses to advance.
• There were wooded glades on either side which allowed for the English longbowmen, by far the biggest strength of the English army, to have their flanks protected from cavalry.
• The French had many times more Men-at-Arms and cavalry than the English, with more soldiers arriving all the time.

So surely considering the above circumstances it would have been advantageous for the French to simply retreat and wait for the English army to advance to a position which is less beneficial to their strengths?

Not to mention the outbreak of dysentry would have further decimated English numbers, whilst the French would have been able to swell their ranks the longer they delayed.

So can anyone elucidate why the French army decided to advance slowly through a muddy field, under storms of English longbow arrows and fight at Agincourt? Was it arrogance?

Also I would be interested to hear why the French ranks seemed to eschew the use of their crossbowmen in the battle, apart from an initial volley at the beginning.

I look forward to reading your responses!

I am a citizen from Latin America, and many of the recent dictatorships here tried to justify themselves by using the "fight against communism" as an excuse. Are there any other countries(outside LA) that founded an authoritarian state using the same objective? And are there countries that, facing the same "problem", didn't need to estabilish some kind of dictadorship or authoritarian state to deal with it? (Sorry for eventual grammar mistakes)

When one great civilization declines, it seems to be replaced by a new power in the northwest. Ancient Egypt is followed by Ancient Greece, which is conquered by Rome. The first non-Roman emperor is Charlemagne in Francia. Later, the Netherlands to the north and Great-Britain to the northwest become rich and powerful. The foremost power in the 20th century is the US, even further west, and it might be followed first by Japan and then China: west, west.

I'm interested in long term economic history so I wonder whether there is some kind of overarching theory for this movement to the northwest. Climate change? Or maybe more advanced societies need resources that are more abundant in northern regions.

I know very little about either event. What I do know came from Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China Jung Chang Is that an accurate portrayal of how those policies affected everyday citizens. Also why were these put into affect and were there any government officials who realized these were bad policies and did they try to prevent them from being enacted.

Hello, Im doing a public speaking about Leos Mona Lisa. What are the facts I absolutely have to mention?

Appreciate any insight.

I was thinking somethings like Joseph Campbell's the hero with a thousand faces. I also need a primary source, do you think the bible or other religious texts describing the character would suffice? I'm just not sure where I can find a primary document regarding religion. I know the bible isn't exactly a valid source of historical documentation, but it's the only insight we have on the man that Christ was.

I was initially thinking about the known similarities between hagiographies (biographies on saints) and the life of Jesus, and how one historian said you have to be very careful with any such "history" gleaned from hagiographies because of the tendency to mash what's known about the saint into a similar framework as Jesus' life.

But then I had the realization, that much modern journalism, non-fiction or even history does roughly the same thing, though not specifically via the "life of jesus" but through the "hero's journey/monomyth." The very structure of narrative seems to sequence around epiphanies and conflict, that though they may not follow the entirety of a monomyth template, they may pluck significant elements from them.

So even though modern scholars may adhere "less" to the strict confines of a hagiography, we are nonetheless still "informed" by that narrative structure. If that's the case, does that call into any question conclusions derived from such a structure? Are there alternatives?

Surely there must be an article or book somewhere regarding the "Tyranny of the Narrative." I feel like this question has already been addressed before, though I don't know where to look.

Also, is this a historiographical, literary, or philosophical question? Or are they far more related in this case.

I will be visiting Krakow in May. Auschwitz is an essential on my list, as is the Schindler factory. Any other historic recommendations for Poland in a similar vein? I also have the possibility of being able to visit Warsaw for a day? What are some essentials that I can see there?

I hope this is the right forum for my question.. Thanks!

Hello :)

I am currently working on research for a historical-fantasy novel, set in what would be our equivalent year of 1691 A.D. I have done a lot of research on customs, cultures, and politics of the period surrounding this date, but one large question that has yet to be answered clearly is on tactics and warfare. As I understand, the flintlock musket was introduced around this time, in varying degrees and respects, though a lot of the online sources I have found simply elude to 'a changing of tactics with the introduction of the flintlock musket'. So, to restate my question as clearly and conscisely as possible: How did the introduction of the flintlock change how warfare was fought?

Feel free to include as little or as much information as you want, as I said, I have done quite a bit of research on the period (though in an admitedly ametuer fashion), but I should have some context with which to understand more in depth answers.

Thank you!

The Sarissa Phalanx (or Sarissaphoroi) was definitely a key part of the Macedonian army during the time of Alexander the great but when did it come into/fall out of use and why?

Oh, and i'm specifically referring to the infantry unit and not the cavalry unit which sometimes shares the same name.

Thanks!